[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170620.124040.491492963882254347.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:40:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: serhe.popovych@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fib_rules: Resolve goto rules target on delete
From: Serhey Popovych <serhe.popovych@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 15:44:47 +0300
> We should avoid marking goto rules unresolved when their
> target is actually reachable after rule deletion.
>
> Consolder following sample scenario:
>
> # ip -4 ru sh
> 0: from all lookup local
> 32000: from all goto 32100
> 32100: from all lookup main
> 32100: from all lookup default
> 32766: from all lookup main
> 32767: from all lookup default
>
> # ip -4 ru del pref 32100 table main
> # ip -4 ru sh
> 0: from all lookup local
> 32000: from all goto 32100 [unresolved]
> 32100: from all lookup default
> 32766: from all lookup main
> 32767: from all lookup default
>
> After removal of first rule with preference 32100 we
> mark all goto rules as unreachable, even when rule with
> same preference as removed one still present.
>
> Check if next rule with same preference is available
> and make all rules with goto action pointing to it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Serhey Popovych <serhe.popovych@...il.com>
Applied, thanks.
It would be awesome if you could distill the above into a test case that
could be run under tools/testing/selftests/networking.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists